Posted
by
timothyon Thursday May 23, 2013 @09:26AM
from the transparent-power-grab dept.

judgecorp writes "Supporters of the Communications Data Bill (also known as the Snooper's Charter) have lost no time in calling for the Bill to be revived, in response to yesterday's brutal murder of a soldier on the streets of Woolwich, South London. The Bill would have allowed monitoring of all online communications — including who people contact and what websites they visit — but was shelved after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opposed it, effectively splitting Britain's coalition government on the issue. Now the fear of new terrorism could rekindle support, based on the argument that even 'lone wolf' attackers use the Internet."

Dale Cregan shot and threw grenades at killing two police officers last year.

Raul Moat before that hunted for and shot a police officer in the face after having just shot two other people and said he was starting a war with the police.

Both of these were making political statements by attempting to instil fear, neither was classed as a terrorist incident.

The only difference this time is that the perpetrators identified as muslim. The fact they were talking to and not harming everyone else that was around afterwards means they were arguably less effective at instilling fear than people like Dale Cregan was, so if this was terrorism why were other such incidents not?

More realistically these seemed like a pair of London gangbangers desperate for a cause which they could use as an excuse to commit murder. They were not your usual middle eastern jihadis, they even quoted from the Christian bible which shows how poor their association with the jihadi ideology actually was.

We'd be better off dealing with London's gang problem once and for all (the one that triggered the riots) than we would pratting around treating this as a terrorist incident and investing in the security service's ability to snoop - hint: they knew about these guys anyway using existing ability and still couldn't/didn't stop them.

It must (a) involve and action which falls under subsection 2 of the act [violence against the person, damage to property etc, it does no dispute about that](b) the threat is designed to influence the government or international governmental organisation or intimidate the public etcand (c) be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, radical or ideological cause

Right, and Dale Cregan shot one female police officer as she knocked on a door, and shot the other in the back as she ran away and then threw a grenade between the two of them whilst they were still alive and desperately trying to crawl away.

You'll have to excuse me if I still don't exactly see the difference even when the level of barbarism is taken into account. Even Raul Moat walking up to a police officer whose sat pulled up in his car, sticking a shotgun in his face and pulling the trigger doesn't strike me as particularly free from barbarism.

I agree none of these are ordinary murders, they're particularly extreme murders, but neither case is any more terrorism than the other. There was extreme barbarism in each case, and there was a message in each case.

Actually there is NO definition for terrorism. I mention this because it is part of the problem. As of now, something is terrorism simply because someone claims it is.

The story behind why this is the case is actually very important and one you should know about. To make a long story short, the definition would be "use of military force against civilians by a non-state actor to advance political goal" (vs. simple crime), note this would make all hate crimes terrorism, and what is the difference anyway. A

Perhaps if the West wasn't murdering civilians with their drones on a near daily basis, these two muslims might not have been so angry?

No, you've got it all wrong. You see, the Sunnis will be quite happy [abna.ir] if you cheerfully massacre a few Shi'ites for them, and the Shi'ites won't consider it a big deal [foxnews.com] if you blow up a few Sunnis into the afterlife every now and then. You just have to be clever and concentrate on killing Muslims of only one of those two kinds, and then live in barracks close to the housings of the other kind, or otherwise you'll be meeting angry Muslims on the streets instead of the jubilating ones.

It is worth reading and made me think a bit. That's always a good thing, right? So, I recalled reading some comments about it up-thread and figured I'd share the link with you as you too may find it interesting. One of the good things about the internet is that it enables people to bring questions like this to the forefront and enables us to discuss and learn. For those of us who recall the pre-internet days the contrast is startling.

Can we value human life any less? The massacre of innocent *non-combattants* is "regrettable"? Anyone who thinks like this has lost the right to be considered civilized. You shed crocodile tears. I will not regret your demise, nor shed any tears for the likes of you.

There were no civilians in WW2. It was a strict "us against them" fight to the death. Every side in WW2 killed millions of people towards that end. If you are going to go to war that is the only way it should be done. When WW2 was over their was no ambiguity about who won and who lost. Today's wars kill a lot of people and create havoc but in the end have little effect on the behavior of the belligerents. Both Germany and Japan were beating so bad that running an insurgency campaign was the last thing on a

Really? How was the murder of a British soldier in the middle of the street in broad daylight by two individuals who were yelling "allahu akbar" and saying they were doing it for revenge against Brits for "murdering" muslims in "muslim countries" TERRORISM? Maybe you can visit http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and learn something... like that there have been over 20,000 terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims in the name of islam SINCE 9/11/2001, that have left thousands dead and maimed?

I was wondering about Sam Harris' argument in The End of Faith, basically that we have to go beyond irrationality if we're to survive, and that amongst all the world's faiths, Islam is at present the "worst" for various reasons -- there is no separation of Church and State, Islam is seen as a "complete system" (like communism or capitalism or whatever, ie. political power) and so on. One point he made as I recall, was that all the faiths have been weakened by modern secularism, and that's a good thing, but let's not forget they were weakened into being more peaceful. You can find all sorts of barbaric stuff in religions, although some histories were perhaps a bit more barbaric than others. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini said that the West lies about Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" because, as the Ayatollah says, no true Prophet would ever be so stupid as to say such a stupid thing. Also Islam sees itself as inheriting the real truth, a truth that the Jews allowed to corrupt, and that the Christians allowed to corrupt, so the Islamic thing is to not allow it to be corrupted ie. don't modernise no matter what, remain pure. So there are variations and differences, and Harris thinks Islam is currently the worst offender, and the "peace" is actually only peace if you join the religion, be one of them, as it is monotheistic, One True God, no other way, only one right way, you're either with us or against us. The modern secular thing is, nobody has the real truth, let's enquire together and find stuff out. But in some Islamic schools, that is blasphemy. So it is complex. But how to respond when some "sick by Western standards" individuals gravitate towards the more murderous parts of certain ideologies? I guess the secular thing is to downplay religious intolerance and try to reaffirm, look, WE ALL WANT TO BE PEACEFUL. No to religious intolerance, no to religious hatred, no to hate. So called "terrorist" acts (are soldiers just a little more worried now when they walk out the gate? should they be? is that the intended effect? well, yeah) are there to incite hatred. People like that WANT to stir up hatred. And that's why we try to ignore them. But whether that will work in the long term, that's hard to see.

Personally I'm not sure, but I was struck by Bernard Lewis' description that in Islam the moderate school said you have to reinterpret the Koran and Hadiths for moderns times, but the other school said, no, it doesn't matter how clever your interpretation is, if the other guys have more power then they can just kill you, so all that really matters is power, and actually the book wasn't written in an older period, thus "needing reinterpretation", it is actually "unwritten" and always exists as the true mind

But that's where I don't understand. Why do Muslims feel solidarity with all the world's Muslims? My understanding of secular modern life is, you don't identify with a religion or race or nationalism, you transcend that for identity with a humanistic world citizenry.

Then within that you might think, gee those Quakers have a really nice practice around this or that, and those French have a really nice soup dish, and those Chinese have a really nice idea about respect for elders, and those Arabs have a really

Why do Muslims feel solidarity with all the world's Muslims? My understanding of secular modern life is...

Short answer: Because with muslims, they're muslims first and last. Anything else is non-relevant, oh and secular modern life is haram, much like free speech in most cases. Especially with the rise of islamo-fascism. Never mind that the UK has quite a problem with muslims, I mean "asians" and their sex grooming gangs too. Well whatever, they'd rather turn to political correctness over an issue then look at the actual problem.

Yes true, but why does a guy identify as Muslim in one country and claim to be brother to an entirely different part of the world? The non-Muslim is seen as worse than the "we-didn't-quite-get-the-same-memo-about-who-was-in-charge-after-the-prophet" disagreement.

It wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war. The UK and the US are at war, why are you so surprised when the war hits home? People are just fine with senseless random killings of muslims half a world away, but kill one white European....

I'm absolutely not defending these people at all. I'm not fine with random killings on the street whether they are in the UK or Afghanistan. I'm just saying what they've done is no worse than our own public policy implemented by people we've elected. If you hate these people, you have to hate your own government, or be a hypocrit.

If you think this act is horrible, this is what the Afghan people deal with all the time.

They weren't killing for the sake of the love of the slaughter, they were killing for the same reason any other gangbanger kills - for "respect".

These are people with nothing in their lives, bought up in violent neighbourhoods surrounded by knife and gun crime and frequent stabbings and sought fame in the only way these sorts of people know - more violence.

The government and media has given them exactly what they wanted, they've published the mobile phone footage of them chatting before the police turned up

There were plenty of cases of Germans attacking the Third Reich, more obviously there were several attempts by Germans to assassinate Hitler. That didn't make WWII a civil war. Just an international war with some within the country opposed to it.

For sure the Third Reich would have called it terrorism.

Crime, Terrorism, Political act, Resistance, Freedom Fighting. All these things are a matter of perspective. Each using terms to mould the events to the way they see it.

[Godwin smodwin]

Which doesn't in any way mean I have any sympathy for the event in Woolwich, but equally I don't have any sympathy for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I abhor violence.

"There were plenty of cases of Germans attacking the Third Reich, more obviously there were several attempts by Germans to assassinate Hitler. That didn't make WWII a civil war. Just an international war with some within the country opposed to it."

This is absolutely true but the problem is that had those Germans assassinated people in their own country it would not have been an act of war but would've been murder.

This is the fundamental distinction at play here, unless it's a civil war you cannot be a membe

There were plenty of cases of Germans attacking the Third Reich, more obviously there were several attempts by Germans to assassinate Hitler. That didn't make WWII a civil war. Just an international war with some within the country opposed to it.

For sure the Third Reich would have called it terrorism.

The Germans in World War II routinely referred to the resistance in the various occupied countries as terrorists.

This is not an act of war. It has no other purpose but institute fear.

Isn't that the purpose of warfare? To extract compliance from a population with the fear of death?

If you are unhappy with the US/UK governments you are strongly encouraged to run for office or campaign for change following the low of the land.

Seeing how most of the populace is OK with the wholesale slaughter of brown people from third world countries, I wouldn't have much of a chance.

But justifying random killings is disgusting.

I agree. I'm as disgusted by those who try to justify the war in Afghanistan as you are by this attack in the UK.

it is a bit single sided to accuse only US

Who accused only the US?

They do it for the most part because they can.

So, might makes right? Couldn't you justify this attack with the same logic?

In case you are going to refer me to some extreme christian denominations

You missed my point entirely. Our "moderate" public policy is *more extreme* than these militants. Far, far more innocent people have died at the hands of westerners in Afghanistan than have died at the hands of jihadists in the west.

Now in the light of this there is also other ways to defend you interest without random bombings

Great, now tell the US and UK so we can defend our interests with less violence.

Now, flip the script: British soldier in Afghanistan carves up a random unarmed person on the street, with no existing threat or reasonable belief there is a threat to himself.

That's exactly what happens all the time. Except the knife is a drone.

Or are you going to be howling for that soldier's head on a stake?

Either both should have their heads on a stake or neither. There are good cases to be made for either. I don't see any good argument that the acts are essentially different and deserve to be treated differently.

The quote doesn't say anything about guns, only freedom in general. But since you ask - you are a British subject, which says a lot. 100 years ago Britons were freer to own guns, and don't the crime statistics show lower crime then? I would guess your assessment would be that you would feel freer now than then despite the higher crime rate.

I notice HM is guarded by people with guns. I've even read a report that she has been known to carry a Webley. Do you suppose she feels less free because of it? Do

You're wrong about "British subjects", which says a lot about you. You are overconfident with your facts. It takes all of a few seconds on the Web for you to check them before you hit post.

If you believe there are valid comparable crime statistics from today and 100 years ago, and that you can isolate all other changes in British society apart from gun ownership in your analysis, do go ahead and post it. I fancy a laugh.

The comment about the Queen is risible. A frequent trope of interviews with people who h

That doesn't mean that there was widespread ownership of guns 100 years ago. There wasn't. There was widespread ownership of shotguns amongst farmers, and the relatively small number of gamekeepers. But that was probably about it. No notable ownership of guns in urban areas.

As to crime statistics it's impossible to say. There was no comprehensive collection of crime statistics 100 years ago. Certainly not that you could compare with today's statistics.

I notice HM is guarded by people with guns. I've even read a report that she has been known to carry a Webley.

Because if there was 'no notable ownership of guns in urban areas', how come the police a hundred years ago could often manage to borrow guns from those people who didn't own any when they were chasing armed criminals?

Do you actually know anything about British history?...how come the police a hundred years ago could often manage to borrow guns from those people who didn't own any when they were chasing armed criminals?

Was your knowledge of British History gleaned from Miss Marple whodunnits?

Did you see the footage on YouTube? Just moments after the attack the guy was talking to other members of the public, still holding the cleaver and covered in blood and people were just walking around oblivious.

The only terrorism here is from the media hyping this up into fervor just to sell some headlines, and the politicians jumping all over this to further encroach into the lives of the general populace.

Terrorism is the act of publicising your cause by making people afraid to go about their normal lives.

The whole point of the IRA bombing shopping centres, hotels and pubs was that it would impact how people lived, and keep the Irish Republican cause in the news. "Shall we go for a booze-up in Birmingham this weekend?" "Oh, hmm, bit worried about getting killed by a bomb."

These guys committed their murder in broad daylight, then waited around for the cameraphones to come out. Then did what

It plays on the uncertainty that nobody can predict how far it will spread. If we all believed it was just a couple of guys then it can be dismissed as just another deranged murder. But if we are told by the killers themselves, we are fighting for Muslim brothers, and we are getting revenge and tomorrow it could be you, then that plants the fear. Whether we subscribe to it is another matter. But it plants the seed: you can try to ignore us, but how do you know there aren't going to be hundreds like us soon?

Perhaps I missed it, but, uh, did this actually happen? Look at the video [itv.com] of one of the supposed-attackers after-the-supposed-fact.

a) Why is the supposed knife he is holding blurred out?
b) Why does he look so damn calm?
c) Why is nobody else freaking out? An old lady just walks right in front of the guy who supposedly just murdered a guy and still has blood on his hands. Two young girls go up to him and try talking to him. Is that a reasonable thing to do with a still-bleeding corpse on the ground not a

It's Britain. We're used to terrorism. I remember after the 7/7 bombings one of the more popular jokes in the immediate aftermath was 'so Al Qaeda made the underground late, Ken Livingstone has been doing that for years and he doesn't even need bombs.'. Honestly I'm amazed no one offered these guys a cup of tea.

I thought everyone was familiar with the process thanks to the Saturday morning cartoons, but perhaps some of you Delinquent Terrorees need it spelled out.

After a crime or crime-like event, what'll happen is that someone on the Terroree Committee announces their IBA (Intent to Become Afraid). Another committee member seconds this, possibly after some out-of-band side-dealing. This brings the terror (small "t") to the floor, where a wider discussion en

Oh please. They attacked a soldier because he was a soldier, not because he was a Christian (if he even was a Christian).

That makes this political. And even if it were for religious reasons would that make it any less terroristic in nature? I believe the basis of most terrorism of this nature has religious roots but ultimately it has political ties due to questions of governance and territory.

Well, it was in fact terrorism because what makes it terrorism is not the seriousness of the crime, but the intent. On the other hand, I don't see "fear and stupidity". I can see some degree of stupidity, but certainly not fear.

The prosecutor actually shook hands with Brevik because that's how they always do it and the hell some mass murdering bastard is going to make them give in and change their ways for the worse.

You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?

Will you welcome a new overlord from a foreign land if they simply offer you peace for submission [gatestoneinstitute.org]?

Murder is already very, very illegal. No new laws are needed.Planning murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.Soliciting murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.

I believe that level of perfection in the law was reached by 1613. Are you suggesting that in the last 400 years that all subsequent new laws were unneeded? There was no need to ban guns, since killing people was already illegal? No need for any of the anti-terrorism laws, since killing people was already illegal? T

You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to surrender rights and privacy in order to feel safer. That's what we did here in the US, and now people get molested for trying to get on a plane. How could that be considered a good thing?

It's amazing how a city so hardened against crime, terrorists and adversity still goes to pieces at the first sign of snow. Before you mod me down, please notice the u/n and bear in mind what the North has already been dealing with - without complaint - when the white stuff first hits London.

The prosecutor actually shook hands with Brevik because that's how they always do it and the hell some mass murdering bastard is going to make them give in and change their ways for the worse.

...Is almost certainly the correct answer.

We've managed to take principled stands against things like paying ransoms to hostage takers for years, recognising that even though the consequences in an individual case may be horrible it is important not to lend any credibility to the strategy of taking hostages.

Today we are seeing a few very small groups of people, who want to instil fear to promote some sort of ideological position, who actually do relatively little damage but do it in ostentatious ways to see

That the Snooper's Charter will reduce the threat of Terrorism is an untested hypothesis. Prove it will achieve such goals, THEN we'll talk about having it be a law.

As one of my colleagues often says to me, "you're being rational again". Politics doesn't follow the scientific method. The British tabloids (which are already pretty xenophobic) will be cranking up the FUD level to the max. When the idea get's enough mindshare among their readers, the politicians will follow the votes.

British politics has no room for scientific method though because of the way our ill thought out democracy is built (FPTP and so forth) it inevitably descends into a war of populist arguments. The US is arguably even more extreme again in this respect because it's also an inevitable result of the two part state - when you have only two parties realistically competing for power the ultimate result is that you have the two sides sliding towards opposing extremes in their arguments because there are no other p

The law is ill-equipped to deal with hate preachers and their adherents, and the offenders' community seems half-hearted in their denunciation, despite the offenders slandering Islam by committing these atrocities in its name.

Citizens need to take direct action to make such people vanish. They are the enemy.

Err, that's what these two people did. They saw the enemy, someone who (if not personally, then is part of the same gang that has) harassed their community, jailed their compatriots, etc. They took steps to "vanish" the person.

Now quick, justify the E-e-edl attacking mosques! What? You're denunciation seems rather half-hearted you right-wing racist bastard scum. I think it's about time someone took direct action to make you vanish.

What's that? The right to conceal-carry then briefly open-carry? "One Adam Twelve, One Adam Twelve: Reports of man flashing his 'piece' near 5th and Elm" "Roger, dispatch. We encountered the gentleman, and he was exercising his right to bare arms".

Of course this bill would not prevent any repetition of this act and countless other ways psychopaths with religion can kill people. It will however foster a police- and surveillance-state where the whole population is kept in fear permanently. From the efforts to reclassify this act as "terrorism", I conclude that keeping the population in fear is highly desirable for the UK government, possibly because it is failing at its job in countless other areas.

First, this wasn't terrorism, it was war. Killing a soldier of a nation that kills people in a nation you view as "your" nation is not terrorism, it's plain war. Well, at least it's every bit war as drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan are war. Or are the soldiers controlling the drones from Texas terrorists and killers?

And: Snooping on all Internet communications to catch "lone wolf" terrorists is a War on the People, nothing less.

This isn't going to end well and this "attack" (on one soldier, OMG) is the smallest part of it. There are people in Britain knived down in the streets every day. Two guys decide to change the course of history and everybody is helping to get the job done. Just great, really.

The irony of this is that the Prophet Muhammed fought explicitly against this kind of behavior in his wars against the Arab pagans. Before Muhammed, Arab culture was drowning in "Jahiliyah", which is best understood as extremist machismo. Arab chieftains would think nothing of acting violently and completely out of context/overreact to any insult, real or perceived. They would commit acts similar to what occurred in London: beheading a fellow tribe member for looking at them wrong, proclaiming a blood feud over a trifle--all in the name of being a leader and being a "man's man". Women had only the rights and privileges that men allowed them--which in those times varied wildly. If a woman was part of a bedouin tribe, she was merely property and forced to be part of a polygamous society (and as far as the whole 9 year old girl thing--that was exceptionally common amongst most cultures in that time period, and it was the de-facto standard in Arab tribal life); if she lived in Mecca or one of the few Arab cities, she had a chance at wealth and education. What Muhammed did (leaving Allah out of this) was introduce a counter-culture where women and men were on separate, yet equal footing, and deprogrammed the extreme masculinity. The wars between Mecca and Medina were all about this, and eventually Muhammed won out. Except that after his death, the Arab culture slowly subsumed and altered Islam, because culture always subsumes religion (and not the other way around; modern Christianity is nothing more than Emperor-worship a la Rome).

And now I'm going to violate the One True Scotsman rule, and say that what happened in London was a complete barbarity, and Muslims should be ashamed because they have allowed the worst aspects of Arab culture to redefine the words of the Prophet--it's as the critics of Islam say on here now: Islam as it is now, needs to either be destroyed or thoroughly reformed because it no longer reflects the will of Allah and the Prophet.

I think the worst descriptions of M. I've read are about the Arab culture of honour and war [1] and it is interesting that most trouble we hear about is in the Arab world, whilst the biggest Muslin country is actually Indonesia. Perhaps it is just the result of desert life. To quote a terrible line, "I hate sand".

Interestingly there was a study that said the honour code (you should personally retaliate against people) is present in USA and increases from North to South -- the further South you go, the more

I consider these sorts of immediate reactions as the worst kind of political deceit. (The Patriot Act was another, similar, case.) It would be one thing if some commission examined the circumstances, and came out in 6 months or so with a considered argument as to why this or that measure might have made a difference. That at least could be debated. But, no, instead it is "here are these pre-canned ideas that have been shot down before, but now you need to adopt them immediately just because."

Thats because thanks to an asinine immigration policy, a large percentage of the "citizens" in the UK are themselves 1st gen. immigrants from the same countries/religions as the people that perpitrate these attacks.

Yeah, I remember how that was going to happen in Florida after they legalised concealed carry.

Fortunately it doesn't happen in the real world. You're far more likely to be shot by a cop than by an armed bystander, because the cop turns up while the crime is in progress and has to figure out who the bad guys are, while the armed bystander already knows.

Nor did it happen in late Victorian times when an armed criminal in London would find said bystanders shooting at them and loaning guns to unarmed police who

I follow these stories closely and I've never heard of a single incident where an armed citizen interrupting a crime has been mistakenly shot by another armed citizen.

In the U.S., it's the POLICE you need to worry about. They shoot a lot more innocent civilians than armed citizens.

They managed to wound NINE innocent bystanders when they fired a fusillade of bullets at a killer outside the Empire State Building. They killed a little girl in Detroit attempting to execute an arrest warrant on a person that w

That only works if you have people who care about living. Some of these attacks are by those who seek to become 'martyrs'. Indeed reports stated that the attackers ran to the police armed response unit brandishing weapons alnd almost wanting to be shot.

I'm glad to live in a civilised society without guns and the risk of injuries from crossfire. At least here we don't have over 80 deaths per day from guns -- even scaling for relative population size the death toll is a high price to pay for "freedom" to car

This would be substantially less likely to work in the US because terrorists know that such acts of violence would very likely end with them being met with a hail of bullets from bystanders or the police.

Remind me how many people died in the boston bombings again? How did or could guns have helped there exactly?

Remind me how well your firearms trained campus cop fared against the two brothers responsible again?

If we had US gun laws then this would've looked a lot less like a random murder and a whole lot more like an Anders Breivik massacre, so no, how about we don't have US style gun laws here.

The fact the most these guys could muster was a rusty pistol that they appeared to have managed to make little use of and a bunch of knives meaning this was only a one victim attack is actually a vindication of the fact that our gun laws are pretty effective. If even determined killers can't get more than a knackered rusty pistol between two of them then great, our laws are working really well.

The idea that a firearm renders you invulnerable is a strawman set up by the anti-gun crowd. No firearms freedom advocates are claiming that carrying a firearm is a panacea for personal safety. A firearm merely gives you a fighting chance against an armed or physically superior attacker.

Speaking of the Boston bombings, are pressure cookers and fireworks banned in your country? Do the anti-gun laws extend into Ireland and did they prevent the IRA from carrying out attacks?

You revive gun rights instead. Let's dispense with the boilerplate bullshit about how having a gun might not have saved him and just face a simple fact here. This would be substantially less likely to work in the US because terrorists know that such acts of violence would very likely end with them being met with a hail of bullets from bystanders or the police. In the US, random acts of savagery typically only happen in those areas where criminals know the citizenry cannot be lawfully armed. That those areas also tend to be minimally secured by the government to counter this fact is probably also a feature to them as well...

If we had extensive gun ownership, they would not have been stabbing their victim- they would have hit him with a hail of bullets, probably killing bystanders in the process. The hail of bullets from other panicked bystanders would probably have killed yet more innocent people on the crowded London street.

Nothing is likely to save someone from a targeted ambush; it's a simple fact of life that no matter how well armed you are, if people you don't know want to kill you by surprise on a busy street, you proba

There's more: there was a woman who approached within arm's reach and engaged them in conversation. And now, just because they didn't happen to be killing randomly, there are probably people who think she "defused" the situation. If they would have been on a murder-spree, she'd be dead.

According to today's news, the 'security services' had run into these men several times in previous investigations, so if that hadn't tipped them off that they were going to do something, snooping on their email would unlikely to do so.